E. J. Dionne Jr. Recently Wrote This

[The Whiskey Priest]

In a recent Atlantic Monthly. The following is a paragraph from the article,Ifound it filled with interesting thoughts. I am interested to see if you share my opinion? To me it presents several questions...how would you answer the questions?


“If one looks primarily at the extremes of opinion (and I use "extremes" descriptively, not pejoratively), of course there is a deep cultural conflict in the United States. It is waged between the 15 to 20 percent of the country that is both profoundly religious and staunchly conservative and the 15 to 20 percent that is both profoundly secular and staunchly liberal. One can quibble about the exact numbers at each end; religious conservatives probably outnumber secular liberals, though the secular group is growing. But there is no doubt that these two groups exist, have very strong feelings, and on the whole can't stand each other. They regularly toss epithets across their divide. The godly attack the ungodly. The tolerant attack the intolerant. The cosmopolitan attack the parochial. The rooted attack the rootless. Moralists attack the permissive.

But whatever the numbers, those most ardently engaged on both sides of this fight, taken together, do not constitute a majority of Americans. I would reckon (and much social-science evidence supports this) that 60 to 70 percent of us fall at some middle point. Those in the middle may tilt a bit left or a bit right, but they often have mixed or ambivalent views. Many defy stereotypes: right-to-lifers for gay marriage; pro-choicers against assisted suicide; devoutly religious liberals; decidedly agnostic conservatives. And many simply run away at the first sign that a cultural battle is about to break out. “


Questions:

Do you think Dionne Jr. is correct?
Does this say anything that impacts our ability to win election? If so what?
Provided that there is validity to his premise; is there importance to the way we, liberals and progrssive, address the inference of this statement?
Any other thoughts on this statement.




http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200601/culture-war

[benburch]

1. Good! Fewer Fascists to kill. nt

[AX10]

2. Everyone should read this.

[napi21]

3. I think EJ is close to being right on this.

I don't know about his 70% number, but I believe the rest of it.

I think most of the "candidates" on both sides agree with that too. That's why you rarely see or hear the real strong talk on a campaign trail. Both sides leave that up to the Limballs, Colters, MoveOns, Malloys etc.

For the most part, Americans are pretty easy going people who don't pay much attention to politics or culture woes unless it directly affects them!

[The Whiskey Priest]

7. Not being a Trekkie, I none the less thought of this

There was a Star Trek episode involving a character named Lazarus. I will not recount the plot, only the ending in which it was discovered that the good and bad were within the same person. The show ended with good and bad locked in a struggle and each others throat throughout eternity. Sort of a Sisyphus dilemma….reading Dionnes thought…the picture of the ardent at each end of the political spectrum being always locked in a to-death struggle came to my mind.

[napi21]

8. Moly Ivans was on cspan WJ yesterday AM.

A caller asked her a question about who the majority was, or something like that, and she quoted somebody as saying "We're all both good and bad and right now nobody is appealing to my good side."

That's efectively what EJ is saying too. There's always going to be the extremes on both sides, but the majority is STILL in the middle somewhere. I don't really think that's changed much in many years. The BIG difference we see today is the ability of the fringes to get their YELLING to the forefront, via cable new chanels, the net, and talk radio. I don't really think there's more of 'em, they're just louder!

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Wrong again.

Only one 'fringe' is getting its message out via cable news, network news, radio, and newspapers. The other 'fringe' has been effectively isolated to the blogosphere. EJ and his buddies have their message pumped into the living rooms of the 'great middle' 24/7, and they still have to steal elections. Think about it.

[Neil Lisst]

4. He's right.

We control no part of government, but we still have significant numbers in our midst who can barely talk about anything but how much they want to oust from our party those who are on the right to middle of the party.

We have 44 Senators, but do they want to get 5 more? NO. they want to oust 4-5 of those we already have. Purist suck, on either end of the spectrum.

Every election is about which side can keep their more extreme players voting for the party and supporting it. The pubs have been beating us in that regard, particularly in 2000 and 2002. Our far left is more offensive to the middle than the right's far right, and that's a problem for us.

[MN ChimpH8R]

5. His thesis is dead on

I think that the Reichwing/Freeptard portion of the populace is probably closer to 30% and the sane (liberal) portion is around 22-27%, though, which leaves about 45% in the middle.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Oh fuck that lying shill and the horse he rode in on.

I'm sorry but EJ is playing to liberal disease here. We chronically lean over backwards to be tolerant and understanding. Yes of course 60-70% of the population can't figure out which way is up. No shit. Irrelevant. What is relevant EJ and all of you going here! here!, is that the 15% on the side of religious intolerance and corporate kleptocracy have established a one party tyranny and their leader has asserted dictatorial powers. Meanwhile, like the liberal and progressive Germans of the 30's we are desperately trying to ignore the 500lb gorilla in the room and debating instead how to find some middle ground of congenial compromise. We are engaged, with EJ's encouragement, in reaching out to meet fascism and intolerance half way.

Fuck that shit. Time to stand up and say no to fascism, no to tyranny, no to religious intolerance.

[The Whiskey Priest]

10. Are you ready to give up on the ballot box

and move right on to armed stuggle? Otherwise, the middle is needed to prevail......the guestion is how does the far right continue to appeal to the middle and win elections. Following with why can we not follow that plan and win elections.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Does the phrase "false dichotomy" ring a bell.

I don't think that just because I reject what EJ had to say that the only other choice is 'armed struggle'. How about this choice: the Democratic Party stands for and fights for progressive values and programs that are clearly different from the corporatist bullshit and compromised nonsense that have been the trademark of the Democratic Party since Walter Mondale lost the election?

How about instead of trying to be 'republican lite' to a constantly rightward shifting and increasingly intolerant Republican Party, so as to 'not offend' the famous middle, we actually stand in OPPOSITION?

[The Whiskey Priest]

14. If we cannot win elections with our base....

then how can we win elections if we offend the middle? Furthermore, if our positions are so appealing then we would not need the middle, we would be the majority....my question is how do we win elections? We don't seem to be doing very good, even with all the help the other side is willing to provide...we should have picked up seats the last time, but we lost seats....

[stray cat]

20. I liked Kerry but I think we need candidates that can speak...

to the south and the midwest and look like they fit in. I certainly don't think in general we are too progressive. I think we need a populist message and exude stregth of message and character. Southerners and midwesterners for whatever reason had trouble connecting with Kerry.

[Kahuna]

24. Right. Kerry's okay. But he speaks like your stereotypical pol.

Never did I believe that he would have appeal outside of the blue states.

[Kahuna]

23. Duh... Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!! You said very succinctly in one

well phrased paragraph what I have been trying to say for the past four years. :toast:

[SmokingJacket]

9. I am in that 20% secular liberal contingent, and I dislike being

dismissed as a nutball extremist on a par with the religious conservatives. I have much more in common with the middle ground (which in many ways I inhabit, liberal as I am) than do the Neocons.

I think this bell-curve way of looking at politics is specious. This kind of thinking is why I cancelled my subscription to the Atlantic. That and the lameass fiction.

[The Whiskey Priest]

11. The question is why is our position being trumped by the far right

what is it about our agenda that does not appeal to enough to win elections?

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Uh - the lack of any media with which to present an agenda?

2) the lack of leaders presenting an agenda that is clearly different from the fascist bullshit being promulgated by the right?

What crap. The Democratic Senators, all 44 of them, represent over 50% of the voters. Al Gore won in 2000. John Kerry very likely won in 2004. All without benefit of a media that does anything other than serve as a mouthpiece for the fascist intolerant bastards that EJ represents.

[The Whiskey Priest]

16. Why have we elected people that cannot articulate

our agenda? Is there no one who articulate our agenda? If they exist why can they not win elections? Does the other side articulate their agenda better? Does the other side have better leaders?

I listen to the argument and agenda from the other side it repulses me...why doesn't it have that effect on others...is there something we are overlooking here?

Unless we can overcome and start wininng elections, our agenda will never have a chance of being enacted. I find it uncomfortable to forever be locked out of decisions of public direction, I think we can do better for the country.

[MN ChimpH8R]

17. That's simple

Al Gore gave a brilliant speech a couple of weeks back and it got no attention. Chimpco's foul propaganda is regurgitated daily in endless quantities. Chimpco's crookedness, cronyism and march down the road to fascism are never mentioned or discussed. Why? Because the corporate media tolerates or shares Chimpco's objectives or chooses to cooperate to maximize its access to power and profit. The masses NEVER HEAR our agenda because it is not in the corporate interest to report on it and it is in their interest to squelch it or shout it down.

Chimpco's minions build the voting machines and their software tabulates the votes. When this fails, there is a 'puke majority on the SCOTUS to install the designated 'puke.

We are doomed. They control all of the meaningful machinery in society - only the motivated, curious and open-minded seek out alternative news sources to the corporate whore media. That lets out at least 40% of the country and maybe more.

[SmokingJacket]

18. Wish that question had an easy answer --

We should be able to win with ease, since the majority disapprove of the president -- presumably some of that disapproval has to do with dissatisfaction with the entire party, too.

Over and over again the majority of Americans are shown to be more liberal than conservative: in favor of choice, well-funded public schools, etc.

Yet the Republicans keep winning elections! There are a lot of possible reasons why -- I have a brother who I think is typical, actually. He's an upright, semi-religious guy, basically a good person -- a rule follower. He was undecided about who to vote for in the last election. He was very moved by 9-11, and filled with righteous indignation about it: wanted to kick some terrorist butt. Then he saw Fahrenheit 9-11 and saw how he had been manipulated -- my heart leapt for joy and I thought we had a convert on our hands. But no. Eventually he decided that Fighting Terrorists and keeping the Homeland safe -- and reducing his taxes, too! -- were more important than anything else. Sigh.

He is the kind of guy who *ought* to be a solid Democrat. He works for a living, believes in education, doesn't want Roe v. Wade overturned. He RARELY pays attention to world events, and is therefore easily swayed by the soundbites of the MSM. He hates thinking about the complications of the world and ends up voting for simple reasons.

But how would "moving to the center" change people like him? I mean, exactly what would that entail? Are you suggesting that the Democrats actively exclude radical environmentalists, for example? Or removing gay rights from our platform? I don't think that would change a thing, frankly.

I think our agenda is fine. But it's been misrepresented by our non-media and its constant drumbeats of the rightwing message.

If this was an easy problem to fix, we would have fixed it long ago...

[The Whiskey Priest]

21. I am not suggesting that we exclude anyone

that would be self-defeating since we evidently do not have enough to win election now! I certainly would not exclude those with whom I agree. What I am looking for is an understanding of why our message is not appealling? If we blame it on the media, then we have no hope. It is my thought that if we were setting the policy of this country through an acceptable presentation of our policies then the media would have to report it, otherwise they would lose money and money means alot to them.

[stray cat]

19. Absolutely right.

I think it definitely impacts how to win elections. We need progressives who come across as understanding most working Americans and who can at least talk credibly about national security - cross over appeal to moderates of any party is why McCain could win a national election. If both political parties embrace the extreme its a toss up which direction most Americans will go. I think it also means that a good politician needs to appear to be capable of uniting people to get things dones because many people want to get along with each other whenever possible.

[oasis]

22. Interesting idea for a 2008 bumper sticker: Hill fills the bill. (eom)

[AX10]

25. KICK